 |
resources forexplore exploreresources for |
"Energy Expert Dr. Vaclav Smil (Ph.D. '72) Comments on the Recent Blackout"
Energy Expert, Dr. Vaclav Smil (Ph.D. 1972)
August 21, 2003
Dr. Vaclav Smil (Ph.D. 1972) conducted a long-range forecast of global energy and environmental developments for his dissertation research here at Penn State's Department of Geography. Since then, he has been teaching at the University of Manitoba, where he has earned the position of distinguished professor. Dr. Smil has published 18 books and over 250 papers in more than 80 different energy, environmental, Asian studies, and general science periodicals. Recent books include Energy at the Crossroads: Global Perspectives and Uncertainties (November 2003) and The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics and Change (October 2003), both from MIT Press.
The Royal Society of Canada honors him as "one of the gifted few for whom the term polymat is not an exaggeration. As a scientist, he provides an empirical basis for his judgments, which embrace many disciplines. He is a distinguished scientist engaged in explaining and generalizing science for the betterment of humanity to a most unusual degree". In 2000, the Association for the Advancement of Science honored him with their award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology.
Dr. Vaclav Smil recently shared some insights about his field, the recent blackout, and possible solutions for curbing our rampant energy consumption problems.
How did you first become interested in the field of energy and the environment?
It's really a natural and fundamental thing-energy is behind everything. I began studying energy in the 1960s, before everyone became so concerned about it. Then in 1973-1974, OPEC prices jumped to over $ 10 and by 1980 to nealy $40 a barrel. But as soon as prices fell in 1985, everybody sort of forgot about it, and went on consuming at the usual rates.
Energy is a terribly understudied field. Very few people are engaged in systemic analyses of energy use. Many people study how to make engines work more efficiently, or other little bits, but what's the purpose of studying lots of little bits if no one studies how they all work together? Why to have a superefficient engine in an SUV—when there is no need whatsover for the SUVs to begin with.
The recent blackout is a great example of the lack of any systemic thinking in our culture. Part of the reason for the blackout is because energy is so cheap. If we in North America lived more like Europeans, who consume no more than half or 2/3 of what we consume, we would greatly lower the need to move large blocks of electricity around and hence reduce the risks of transmission failures.
But people are not willing to change. As if SUVs, some weighing 4.5 tons were not enough, people are now buying Hum-Vs, military assault vehicles just to go to the local supermarket. If this is not energy insanity, what is?
Do you consider yourself a geographer?
No, I don't consider myself a geographer, or any other -grapher or -logist, because I disapprove of these disciplinary divisions. Energy, environment, health, nutrition, these grand topics belong to every discipline and hence to none. By the way, there are hardly any departments of Energy Studies in the Western world. So few academics are interested in the problem anymore.
What do you see as possible solutions to our energy problems?
Both energy and goods are so cheap. If energy prices and the capital cost of big consumer items increased, people would be forced to deal with these problems. But in the US prices would have to increase a great deal before people change their ways: as economists would say, it is all very inelastic here. People are living so far away from where they work, that we've gone beyond suburban housing—we're now seeing ex-urban housing, with people commuting 80 miles to work in some cases. Even if gasoline prices double or triple, these people are not going to give up their houses because they have to pay higher gas prices. They'll just pay more. That is what I call infrastructural inefficiency.
And even efficient systems are predicated on energy use. My house is energy super-efficient. It's so well insulated that I have an air-to-air heat exchanger so that carbon dioxide doesn't build up inside. So even in my efficient house I must have a device that is running 24 hours a day.
If our housing system was designed with higher residential density we would be more efficient because we'd require fewer infrastructures and hence less energy to build and to maintain them. But so much of new housing in US and Canada is now located on ever larger lots, this requires much more infrastructure—from copper wiring to snow cleaning machinery to maintain the streets. We're spending more energy just to keep it all running.
Do you think that people's habits can change? Can mentalities change?
You can't get people to shrink their current usage rapidly. It can happen, perhaps, but very, very slowly. If the recent blackout had lasted three months, then people would do something. We act only when prices increase dramatically or when the hardship is not just fleeting. It would require a real constant commitment.
Even Penn State is sprawling now. When I was there in 1972, it was very different. Then when I visited the most recent time in 1996, there were town houses, suburbs—it's really changed into a sprawling city.
I heard an interesting statistic recently: over 70% of people who don't have SUVs would love to have them but don't because they can't afford them. And, in the same study, 20% of people would love to buy a Hum-V, but they can't afford it. We could consume so much less—but the choices seem to be running in the opposite direction.
To read more about Dr. Smil's take on the recent blackout, visit:
Beyond the Blackout by Vaclav Smil (from Tech Central Station).